The third film in my analysis of the chambara films of Akira Kurosawa, is the “positively Shakespearean Throne of Blood. An adaptation of Shakespeare’s tragedy, Macbeth, about hubristic intentions, ambitions for power, and madness, Throne of Blood contextualizes these ideas through the prism of late 15th century Japan. Kurosawa masterfully weaves a jidaigeki (period film) with Noh theater creating an amalgamated Masterpiece of adaptation, isolating the themes of power, fragile masculinity and the patriarchal bargain, as well as the dangers of selfish individualism in a collectivist culture. Kurosawa takes Throne of Blood beyond just a derivate, to give an experience that is wholly unique.
PLOT
After a successful victory
over their Daimyo’s enemies, Generals Washizu (Toshiro Mifune) and Miki (Minoru
Chiaki) find themselves lost as they travel to “Spider’s Web Castle”. Upon the road,
they happen upon a Spirit who tells them their fate. Washizu will be the next Daimyo
and Miki’s children will be the first in a long line of feudal era Lords. Each takes no stock in this ethereal
prognostication until the Daimyo satisfies the first of the phantom’s predictions. This confirmation plants seeds of ambition
and desire that ultimately leads to a bloody violent conclusion and
confirmation of the specter’s foreshadowing.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
As
stated previously in other
essays in this series, Kurosawa is infamous for his western
influences. For his literary influences, while Shakespeare takes a close second
to Dostoevsky, Macbeth is the first of of three Shakespeare plays
Kurosawa adapted (The
Bad sleep Well/Hamlet, and
Ran/King
Lear). Throne of Blood is
not a typical shot for shot remake of the classic play. Instead, Kurosawa also
pulls from Noh, a classical form of dance-drama theater cultivated in period Kurosawa
wanted to depict, the 1400’s, to fuse theater and cinema (Prince 2014).
Blending dance, song, poetry and mime with bare sets, and stylized performances
which provided paradoxically powerful movements of its principal cast, the
inclusion of Noh allowed the film to develop a coldness that is often absent of
previous (and future) adaptations (Prince 2014).
Kurosawa’s
“Macbeth” is an amalgamation of western and eastern influences, giving us a
different cultural way of seeing this classic story. Due to its Nohist inspirations: the emptiness
of space, and the inky black, white and grey pallet of how it is shot, gives
the film a unique calligraphical quality that hasn’t been repeated (until
recently). By tying in Buddhist principles to a very western
structure, Kurosawa produces the same story of betrayal, power, and violence without
the source materials reassuring conclusion (Prince 2014). Rather, in Kurosawa’s
tale, the cycle of human violence never ends.
Production
Kurosawa’s original
desire to adapt Macbeth first came to him after the release of Rashomon.
However,
after learning about Orson Wells’ adaptation released in 1948, he decided to
move on to Seven
Samurai and later Ikiru. He eventually circled back to Throne of
Blood when he believed enough time had passed from Wells’ film. Kurosawa
was not originally slated to direct Throne of Blood, but when the budget
ballooned in pre-production, the only way that Toho believed they could recoup
the costs and eventually make a profit, is if the film was directed by Kurosawa.
Shot on sound stages and
two specific locations, Kurosawa constructed the exterior of the castle on Mt
Fuji for its black volcanic soil, which would add to the stark color pallet he was
trying to construct. This decision proved difficult, as they then had to bring
in truck loads of Fuji volcanic soil to the Toho soundstage (where the scenes
in the interior of the Castle were being shot) so that it would match the
exterior shots. This back and forth up and down the mountain proved both
economically and emotionally taxing for Kurosawa and his crew, eventually
seeking aid from an entire battalion (typically 300-1000 soldiers) of US Marines
for transportation and the building of sets.
Yet, the most interesting
and radical aspect of production came narratively during the films climax. When
Washizu attempts in vain to rally his soldiers to go out and fight the coming
onslaught from Noriyasu’s forces, rather than listen
and follow the orders of their commander, the army, previously established as
having a penchant for overwhelming their enemies with a hail of arrows, begin
to loose them upon their Lord. This sequence was shot with real arrows while
star Toshiro Mifune was in frame. Instead of achieving this through special
effects, trained archers were used; creatin a choreography between them and
Mifune, involving Mifune waving his hands during the sequence to indicate the direction
he was moving to the archers off screen.
Every arrow hit was real, (except for the shot through the neck) taken
by Mifune who wore wooden blocks of protection under his costume. Some of the
closer arrow shots were hollowed out and launched on wires for added safety. This
process resulted in Mifune showing real fear during the sequence which added to
the gravity of the climax and the overall legacy of the film.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
A
lot has been written and analyzed about Macbeth and its many adaptations.
The themes of greed, hubris, and ascending the ladders of power have been tilled
over for centuries. Yet, the elements
that Kurosawa uses to demonize individualism through his changes to
Shakespeare’s original story, the mechanisms of power, and the expressions of
fragile masculinity and the patriarchal bargain, are Sociologically interesting
and valuable to explore.
Individualism
vs. Collectivism
What makes Kurosawa’s adaptation of Macbeth
interesting
and popular, regardless of the narrative changes and
liberties, is the criticism of individualism in favor of a collectivist mindset.
Individualism, prominent in Western cultures, support egocentric ambition and
grasps at money and power. Your ability to succeed is not based in any sort of
loyalty to a collective or other group, but in your own cunning, ingenuity, and
uniqueness. Thus, focusing on the rights of the individual as opposed to the
group. Collectivism, common in Eastern cultures,
sees value in the social group and group formation as valuable and important to
the overall function of society. The changes
made by Kurosawa to Macbeth in Throne of Blood, highlights this
difference and places individualism, not the theatrical tragic flaw of hubris (commonly
the downfall of Sir and Lady Macbeth in the play), as the catalyst for the
demise of its central characters.
The replacement
of the thematic catalyst of hubris for Individualism in Throne of Blood
happens through minimal narrative changes. Firstly, Asaji becomes pregnant (unlike
Lady Macbeth) which motivates Washizu to furthering the plans to kill Miki.
This then allows for greater context for Asaji’s mental breakdown motivated by
the birth of a stillborn child, rather than just guilt and paranoia. Once
Washizu becomes Daimyo at the beginning of the film, he clearly states that he
has no intention of any further malevolent machinations. He is resigned and
almost happy to both have his position, and then give that position up to
Miki’s heir. Yet, it is the temptation of his own dynasty that motivates his
later actions in the film. Secondly, the death of Washizu is not from single
combat with Noriyasu (the Macduff proxy) as it is in the play. In its place,
Washizu dies by being felled by arrows from his own troops. In that last
action, Kurosawa highlights Washizu’s individualistic ambitions to retain power
as madness; one that needs to be eliminated by the collective action of his
people. This anti-individualism is reinforced by the chorus at the end of the
film, indicating to the audience that Washizu’s soul never made it to the
afterlife. His soul remained on earth in eternal purgatory, and thus is
presented as a cautionary tale of western individualism.
Fragile
Masculinity and The Patriarchal Bargain
One
of the powerful mechanisms of socialization (social learning) in any society is
gender socialization. The process by which individuals learn what it means, and
how to perform the gender identities that are considered acceptable within their
society. These messages are then reinforced by various social institutions for
the purposes of governance and social control. Typically, in western
Patriarchal (male centered) societies: the values, ideals, and behaviors
associated with masculinity and maleness are exalted, encouraged, and
normalized; made both invisible and hegemonic.
Yet, because masculinity is valued and expected (especially among men), this
minimizes the way that identified boys and men can express themselves. Because
these masculine standards are so rigid, they can only perform (a narrow form of)
masculinity without sanction. Thus, any social situation identified boys and
men find themselves in (especially cis gendered men) they may be called upon to
validate their masculinity. This also means that every social situation, is
another chance their masculine performance will be interrogated and revoked.
The revocation and reinstatement of individuals’ masculinity is a cycle of cis gendered
social control that makes masculinity itself fragile.
According to Bourdieu (1998) “the social order
functions as an intense symbolic machine tending to ratify the masculine
domination on which it was founded.”(p 9).
Thus, men need to be men, or they are sanctioned until they reclaim
their masculinity in ways that reinforce the narrowly defined and dangerous
forms of masculinity accepted by the Patriarchy (usually using sex or violence
to achieve it). It is not just cishet men that police other men in this system.
Cis gendered women are also socialized to critique men’s performance of masculinity;
the result of which is immediate emasculation. It is this masculine sanctioning
that Asaji uses against Washizu in Throne of Blood when she questions
his resolve to their agreed upon actions (and therefore his masculinity).
Mifune’s long vacant stares indicate the depth of her evisceration of his fragile
masculinity with such a simple look. Washizu is then pressured to salvage his
masculinity through the added violence against Miki and his sons.
Women, socialized into a
misogynistic and patriarchal culture are given value in their bodies, and in
their relationships (especially with cishet men). Thus, cishet women are often
taught to find value in themselves in this system through their relationships
with other people, rather than believing they have value outright. Not only
does this reinforce the norm of women performing a lot of emotional labor for all
their male relationships (sons, husbands, fathers etc.); this also encourages
the patriarchal bargain. The patriarchal
bargain is the different strategies employed by women in a patriarchal system
to maximize security and optimize life options with varying potential for
active or passive resistance in the face of oppression (Kandiyoti 1988). Given that Throne of Blood is set in
the 1400’s, in a masculine emphasized caste system, the patriarchal bargain is
presented as one of the only legitimate avenues for women to gain status and
power. Asaji motivates and berates her husband into violence to seize power for
herself through him. Her ruthlessness (overtly gendered male in Feudal Japan)
is hidden behind a façade of diminutive femininity, manipulating her husband
through social and symbolic castration to be able to access the power that is
denied her through a gendered social system.
Power and its lure
The Weberian definition
of power is the ability to realize your will even when others resist (Weber 1978).
This presupposes that a person has already acquired said power (in whatever
material or symbolic form it takes). To acquire power, you need to understand
where power resides, and while there are many forms of power that exist, the masculine
misogynistic domination of the patriarchal rule that resides in the institutional
system seems to take precedence in Throne of Blood.
Power is usually
generated by those who are in
positions of high authority in powerful social institutions (usually men) who set
the value of the different forms of capital (Financial, cultural, and Symbolic)[1],
and as such, have an undue advantage in the struggles for power within a
particular field[2]. The habitus (habitual behaviors/norms) that
is affected by those types of capital is a form of bio power[3]
that “The Power Elite” (again usually men) has over the rest of the structure,
especially those within the “mass society” (the everyday public outside positions
of power). Therefore, the ignorance and
apathy of “the mass society” is the product of the inability to acquire
multiple forms of capital and habitual behaviors even if they are potentially
able to access it through the symbolic capital. (Mills 2000, Foucault 1977,
hooks 2000, Bourdieu, 1987). This raises a couple of important and seemingly
opposite points:
1.
Symbolic Capital-
abstract forms of privilege based upon a variety of intersecting identities
(race, gender expression, sexuality, disability) does not guarantee access to,
nor exercise of other forms of power, while also not acting as a barrier to
that power (as it does for marginalized identities)
2.
Symbolic
Capital does make the acquisition of other forms of power easier through Symbolic
Power: the ability to impose meanings upon others as “normal” or “natural”
without seeming coercive. This happens when a power system sets cishet able-bodied
white men as the default. This makes the symbolic power invisible to those that
have it, transforming expectation into entitlement
In Throne
of Blood, both Washizu and Miki are introduced as “Men of Power” through their
Military prowess and command over their armies. At the outset of the film, both
understand their power and where it comes from. (Mills 2008). However, after their
encounter with the Spirit in Spider’s Web Forrest, and the fulfillment of its
first proclamation, for Washizu, this privilege becomes invisible. Then, as the
story progresses, his ambition to amass power becomes an expectation. As the
bodies begin to pile, and the blood continues to flow, that expectation is rationalized
into entitlement to explain the violent murders he either performs or condones;
using the words of the spirit as evidence.
This is the demagoguery of masculinity, one that needs to be dismantled.
According to de Beauvior
(2011):
Indeed, [man] is a child , a contingent and vulnerable body, an
innocent, an unwanted drone, a mean tyrant, an egotist, a vain man: and he is
also a liberating hero, the divinity who sets the standards. His desire is a
gross appetite, his embrace a degrading chore: yet his ardor and virile force
are also a demiurgic energy…that woman confined to immanence tries to keep man
in this prison as well; thus the prison will merge with the world and she will
no longer suffer from being shut up in it: the mother, the wife, the lover are
all jailers; society codified by men decrees that women is inferior: she can
only abolish this inferiority by destroying male superiority (p 655, 754)
Given Beauvior’s point, this could be an interesting motivation for Lady Macbeth to manipulate her husband into the killing of Duncan in other (future) adaptations of Macbeth, that I have yet to see.
CONCLUSION
Throne of Blood is a
Masterpiece and is heralded as one of the greatest Shakespeare adaptations in history.
Even without the romanticized dialogue, typically retained in most adaptations,
Kurosawa invokes the classic emotions of the play in a Japanese cultural
context. It’s recontextualization of the Scottish story into Feudal Japan
speaks to the universality of desire, greed and cunning within a militarized patriarchal
system. One that endlessly rewards violence and deception with more of the same. Yet, regardless of its organization as a
cautionary tale, that does not guarantee the public perception and consumption of
it will see it as such.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu Pierre 1987. Distinction: A Social
Critique of the Judgement of Taste Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
_____________ 1998. Masculine
Domination. Stanford: Standford University Press
de Beauvior Simone 2011. The Second Sex New
York: Vintage Books
Foucault Michel 1977. Discipline and Punish:
The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books
hooks bell 2000. Feminist Theory: From Margin
to Center 2nd edition Massachusetts:
South End Press
Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1988. “Bargaining
with Patriarchy.” In Gender and Society
2, no. 3 pp 274–90. Retrieved on 1/3/22 Retrieved at http://www.jstor.org/stable/190357
Mills, C. Wright 2000. The Power Elite New
York: Oxford University Press
______________2008 “On
Knowledge and Power” Pp. 125-137 in The Politics of Truth: Selected Writings
of C. Wright Mills New York
Prince, Stephen 2014.
“Shakespeare Transposed” in The Current New York: The Criterion
Collection Retrieved on Feb 6 2022. Retrieved at https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/270-throne-of-blood-shakespeare-transposed
Weber Max 1978. Economy
and Society California: University
of California Press.
[1] Economic Capital- wealth (income and
assets)
Cultural Capital
– Education and other forms of knowledge, skills, goods and services
Social Capital- Family,
acquaintances and other Social Networks
Symbolic Capital-
legitimation, Abstract forms of privilege (white, male, hetero, able bodied)
[2] 1) They are arenas of struggle for
control over valued resources (forms of capital) which become social relations
of power.
2) They
are structured spaces of dominant and subordinate positions based upon types
and amounts of capital Usually unequally
distributed
3) The
impose upon actors (individuals) specific forms of struggle they are the space
in which conflict resides
4) Fields
are often structured by their own internal mechanisms of development allowing
them to hold some autonomy
